Descartes publishes his text called the meditations. The meditations is his attempt at logically deducing what we, as humans, can know for certain. How does he do this? In his first meditation, he takes a skeptical approach and says that knowledge derived from the senses is untrustworthy because the senses can be deceived. For example, our judgment of distances can be inaccurate as objects can seem larger or smaller than they are. The things we know about science, astronomy and medicine can also be doubted. Surely, he asks, I cannot doubt that I am in my room sitting by the fire clothed in a winter dressing gown. However, I have had dreams of sitting by the fire that seemed so real! Even if I can tell that I am dreaming or not, it’s still possible that a malevolent demon is deceiving my senses and the world before me is merely an illusion. Is there anything left that I can call certain? Even if I am being deceived, the notion that I can doubt anything means that I am, at the very least, thinking and to think must mean I exist. The one thing I know for certain is I EXIST.
Even if Descartes premises are shaky i.e. doubting I can be dreaming, doesn't the conclusion still ring true?
The idea of God is us thinking of a 4d object, we can conceive of the idea but it is beyond our scope because of the nature of God as a perfect and infinite being
This method of doubt tries to reveal if there is anything we know that cannot be doubted, that we can know of with complete certainty.
Descartes asks us to indulge in this skeptical thought to reveal what we can know for certain.
Descartes wasn't a skeptic, uses skeptical doubt as a tool of discovery. To temporarily cast aside assured beliefs if they can be doubted
Moving forward, to know about the existence of God, other minds and bodies we have to prove it from our own consciousness. It has to be an a priori truth
The term passions can be understood as emotions, feelings and/or desires. Hume believes that our passions are the prevailing force in how we go about our lives and places our ability to reason as merely trying to make sense of things
This falls in line with Hume’s belief that reason is not the faculty that allows us to achieve knowledge and aligns with the empiricist notion that knowledge is derived from experiences and sense perceptions (although Hume ultimately believes that we can’t know anything for certain)
In context, the prevailing idea was reason, going as far back as the Stoics, Aristotle, Plato etc. and Hume’s assertion that reason ultimately takes a back seat, unsettling traditional thought at the time.
Hume's explanation is that Humans are essentially animals and are mechanistic in our way of living. Just like any other animal, one of our main objectives is to survive and continue functioning; reasoning isn’t the driving motivation but the faculty to which we make sense of things. The Rationalists, on the other hand, assert the world can be understood when we make logical connections - a way in which we truly come to understand things.
Passions are the ultimate motivation, the goodness and badness of things motivate you regardless of reason e.g. reason tells me I need to study or do chores but I have no desire to do these. However, studying can lead to greater feelings and hence, the bigger motivator.
A man sits in a room with a set of instructions on how to reply to Chinese characters. In his room he receives Chinese characters from a slot on one side of the room. He examines the characters, checks his instructions on how to respond and writes his response down. He then delivers the response into a slot on the other side of the room. Those reading the response on the other side, believe that whatever produced this, clearly understands Chinese.
So does the man in the room understand Chinese? John Searle says no. This thought experiment is an analogy on how computers work and it is ultimately demonstrating that a computer appears to understand language but cannot produce real understanding.
Kierkegaard believed that in order to understand ourselves and the world, the best place to look is within ourselves as humans. The scientists and philosophers looking for objective knowledge were wasting their time as it wasn’t possible. Instead, we can make sense of things by looking at our actions and decisions, and the choices we are able to make. Kierkegaard concludes that we have absolute freedom to make any choice we want, there’s nothing to stop us from being immoral, responsible, kind, negligent or apathetic. We can do anything or nothing.
However, what comes from this realisation of freedom is anxiety. Anxiety is the possibility of freedom, anxiety makes us realise that our freedom is real.
For example: A woman stands at the top of a tall building looking over the edge. She experiences 2 kinds of fear: the fear of falling and the fear brought on by the impulse to throw herself off the edge. The second type of fear described here is the realisation that she’s able to throw herself off if she wanted to.
Anxiety is therefore the consequence of us knowing the absolute freedom we have. It’s the dizziness that comes with making decisions about the future and the sheer possibilities that come with it. However, anxiety is not all bad. It can cause despair but it makes us more aware of the choices, rather than mindlessly making decisions. It makes us more responsible and brings about self-awareness.
But what can we done about this? Kierkegaard believes that we can calm anxiety through faith: The highest passion that drives us to have a more profound encounter with truth and with God. This allows us to better understand our anxiety and ultimately utilise it.